Re: Total Joy of Ownership (GPL Vs. ...)

[vinod@xxxxxxxxxx]

On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 07:23:04PM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> Arun Sharma proclaimed:
> > This discussion is going a little bit off topic - but I think everyone
> > needs to think critically about licenses and their consequences instead
> > of using one because it's cooler than Kelvinator or Godrej (Till recently
> > I fell in this category).
> 
> I think the problem is there is no common Open License that is as popular
> as the free GPL.  Each of the companies moving towards Open Source are
> coming up with their own Open License (NPL, Troll Tech PL, Apple PL etc.)
> adding to the confusion.  If someone sat down and created a cross between
> NPL and GPL, I think it will gain momentum.
> 
> Let us face it, GPL is not overly business friendly because of things like
> infection.  GPL is a great license for part-time contributors, university
> projects and such.

One should not view these licenses as separate entities; they go with the
development models that leads to the software that is being created.
The confusion arises when one wants to switch the development model.

The development model that I am talking of is related to the famous 
Cathedral and the Bazaar style article (and followup's) - i.e. the
distributed model where there is no one central entity, vs. the centralized
model.  

If you are starting a new project, I think you will choose GPL, because 
you want more people to join the efforts. (Basically if I contribute the
code, I wouldn't like anyone else to close the code.)  That is how Linux
is successful today. GPL has a LOT to do with it. (Someone commented 
otherwise!)

But other cases are really tricky: Netscape had closed source, which it
opened, and also wanted that their mentors have some control. Afterall, 
currently they are developing its sources! 

Same is the case with KDE or QT: They have been under "Cathedral" models,
and have been trying to migrate to "Bazaar" model. And hence a lot of 
confusion. It has therefore appropriately led to different licenses.

And if we want to mix the software from the two domains, this confusion 
only increases. And we have a lot of developers who wish such a mix, in 
order to get the application up and running in a very short time. 

The popularity of such mixed code applications will definitely have 
effect on the two portions (open code Vs. closed code). 

As long as the "open path" (i.e. rewriting all the closed code portions) 
is available, it is OK to mix the codes. (Example: Qt was earlier closed, and
there were efforts to open that by writing a GPL version).  

I am one of those who want applications NOW, and also the open code. So it 
is a good thing that we have all these licenses which let you have just that.
If you stick to GPL, well, you miss the applications now. 

Neverthless, GPL is precious - any project that starts new, and has less 
baggage to be adopted from other existing projects, should use GPL. 

- -Vinod
vinod@xxxxxxxxxx

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux in India visit http://www.linux-india.org/
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx with the
words 'unsubscribe linux-india' (without the quotes) in the body of the
email.

------------------------------